ELVIS DECODED

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

In response to those who claim that Elvis knew about the investigation into the airplane lease/buy-back deal his father was involved in, one of the FBI agents involved in the case says it succinctly:

"Contrary to press reports speculating about
PRESLEY’s involvement, agents said he did *not* know about the undercover
investigation and was never an undercover operative. Acknowledging his
trial testimony, agents said VERNON PRESLEY cooperated in the investigation..."

Friday, March 29, 2013

DR. NICHOPOULOS:"All I
know is when Elvis called me about his tooth hurting this morning, he asked if
I could give him something for pain.(No
narcotics were in his nighttime sleeping medication.)I didn’t have my bag at home, so I told him
I’d have to write a prescription."

DR. NICHOPOULOS:"Then I
wrote a prescription for a few Dilaudid tablets."

The date of this prescription, for "a few Dilaudid tablets," was August 16, 1977. But why did Dr. Nichopoulos write this prescription, if he had written a prescription for 50 (4mg) tablets on August 15, just one day prior, in addition to 20cc of liquid Dilaudid? Add to this, though not necessarily for pain in this case, prescriptions dated 8/15/77 for Amytal (pain medication/barbiturate), Dexedrine, Biphetamine, Percodan (pain medication), and Quaalude (barbiturate)?

NOTE: Dilaudid is used for moderate-to-severe pain.

Why did Dr. Nichopoulos not simply provide Dilaudid from the 8/15/77 prescription? Where were these 50 tablets? If these prescriptions were part of an "order" for medication, as is often claimed (and appears to be the case), Dr. Nichopoulos knew that writing prescriptions to build a stockpile of medications for "general dispensing" was in violation of Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, 1306.4(b), as seen here:

Likewise, the pharmacist also knew this was a violation, yet both continued. And here, from page 175 of his book, Dr. Nicopoulos admits what he was doing (in addition to lying to Vernon Presley, though it was Patsy Presley who wrote the checks):

Friday, August 24, 2012

In the photo on the left, we see an ambulance facing west, either driving out of the Graceland gate, or parked just east of the guard house. This photo was purportedly taken by Martin Davis when he stopped by Graceland on his way to a work site, and he stated to co-workers as they viewed the Polaroid snap-shot that the ambulance was departing Graceland en route to Baptist Memorial Hospital on August 16, 1977. This would place the time of this photo at 2:47pm.

Mr. Davis said that he parked across the street from Graceland, then got out of his car and crossed the street so that he was standing at the gate. After awhile, the ambulance that was parked at the front of the mansion came down the hill, and according to Davis, "It was coming out at a high rate of speed." As soon as the ambulance came into Davis's line of sight, he snapped the photo.

Looking at Davis's photo, we can determine the following:

1. The ambulance is just beyond (east of) the yellow vehicle (which was often parked at the guard house during that time period).

2. There is no evidence that the ambulance is moving, though according to Davis, the vehicle was moving, and at a high rate of speed.

3. There is a small crowd of people on the north side of the driveway, facing towards the gate, and they are apparently watching the ambulance approach the gate. In this photo, two people can be seen on the left, and they would have been standing at that location only if other people were further to the left.

4. The girl in the yellow top would have been standing near the middle of the driveway width. There is no evidence the girl is in motion.

5. Davis would have been standing in the street, also in the middle of the driveway, just west of the small crowd.

The following questions/observations come to mind:

1. If this photo was taken at 2:47pm, why was there a small crowd of people gathered around the gate? When the emergency call was placed at 2:30pm, there was no information provided to the public that Elvis was the subject of the call.

2. If the ambulance was moving at a high rate of speed, as stated by Davis, why is no one in the crowd moving out of its way? The ambulance would be turning right/north (to the left in this photo) literally within 1-2 seconds of the photo being taken, yet the people watching the ambulance are not getting out of the way.

3. If the ambulance was moving at a high rate of speed, why did Davis himself not move out of the way? A Polaroid instant camera would not have had a zoom lens in 1977, so the placement of the photographer can be estimated by looking at spatial relationships/comparisons in the photo. It appears that Davis was just west of the gate, and directly in the path of the oncoming ambulance.

4. A crowd could have gathered by the time the ambulance returned to the property with Dr. Nichopoulos around 4:00pm. The ambulance would not have exited the property at a high rate of speed at that time, which is what appears to be the case in this photo. Had the ambulance been moving at a high rate of speed, the two people on the left, as well as Davis himself, would have been getting out of the way of the speeding ambulance.

Now, let's look at this captured image from a video taken later that day when the ambulance was departing the property after returning with Dr. Nichopoulos. This image is taken from WMCTV news footage.

The location of the ambulance is very similar to the location of the ambulance as seen in the Davis photo, though the news footage shows that the ambulance was in motion. However, it was not moving at "a high rate of speed." The presence of the news camera indicates the video was taken later than 2:47pm (when the ambulance left with Elvis's body in the back, en route to BMH), probably just after 4:00pm.

Given that the ambulance in this video is not moving at a high rate of speed, and the crowd of people in the Davis photo (including Davis himself) is not trying to get out of the way of an approaching ambulance that would have run over all of them when turning right towards BMH, it is very likely that Davis's ambulance photograph was taken at the same time as this video news footage, and not at 2:47pm. In fact, there is nothing in the Davis photo to indicate that the photo was taken earlier than 4:00pm.

[Thanks to rareelvispresley.com for the link to the WMCTV footage. The August 28, 1977, Chattanooga News Free Press article about Davis's photo can be found at their website.]

Monday, July 16, 2012

A few years ago, I posted the following question and answer as part of a longer examination of
the call that was allegedly placed by Joe Esposito to Jerry Weintraub on August
16, 1977 (the full post, titled “Hold on one second, Joe…,” can be read in the
June 2007 section of the Elvis Decoded Archive):Q : Were you with the Colonel when you found out Elvis passed away?Jerry Weintraub : No, I was at home and he was supposed to start a tour for me the next
day in Maine and my telephone rang and it was Joe Esposito on one line. I don't
know if he remembers this but it was Joe and he said, "Jerry, I got to
talk to you,” and my other line rang and I said, "Hold on one second, Joe.” And I hit the other line it was Roone Arledge
from ABC news and he said to me, "Jerry, Elvis is dead.” And I said,
"What? What?" I said, "Hold on", and I got back on with
Joe. I said, "Joe, what’s the matter?" Joe said, "I'm in the
bathroom with Elvis. He just died. He hadn't gone. They hadn't taken him away
yet.” He said, "I just want you to know because your phone is gonna start
ringing.” I said, "It's already rung. Roone Arledge is on the phone.”In this interview, Weintraub places the call from Graceland during the
time the paramedics were onsite, which was 2:33pm – 2:47pm, a 14-minute window.He also states that Joe Esposito called first, then Arledge’s call came in
(on a second phone line) while Weintraub was on the phone with Esposito. However, in his 2010 memoir, “When I Stop
Talking, You’ll Know I’m Dead,” Weintraub places Arledge’s call first.Here is the pertinent section from the book (page 159):

The following questions are raised by this account:1. Here, Weintraub
places the Arledge call before the Esposito call. Why has Weintraub changed the order of the
calls? (Granted, could be a simple
recall error.)2. Weintraub states that Arledge’s “people” had picked up the
911 call on a police scanner in Memphis, but in 1977 there was no 911 emergency
system in place, and from what Esposito and others have claimed, the call was
placed for someone “in distress.” How
would Arledge have learned that anyone was dead
based on this call, before the
paramedics had even arrived at Graceland?3. Further on this point, if the emergency call had been picked
up by Arledge’s sources on a police scanner, the alleged wording of the call
still would not have given any clue as to the identity of the patient, nor the
condition of the patient. From what
we’ve been told, Elvis’s name was not used when the emergency call was placed,
which would have been standard protocol.
How would Arledge’s people have known that the call was placed for Elvis,
specifically, if Elvis’s name was not mentioned?4. In Weintraub’s previous statement, Joe Esposito called him
before the paramedics had left Graceland en route to Baptist Memorial Hospital. My analysis, then, was based on the time-frame that the paramedics were in
the bathroom attending to Elvis. One key
statement was, “they hadn’t taken him away yet,” which presumably means that
the body had not yet been removed by the paramedics. This places the call to Weintraub sometime
between 2:33pm (when the paramedics arrived) and 2:47pm (when the paramedics
departed Graceland for BMH). However, in
his book, Weintraub states that Esposito called when Elvis’s body still was on
the bathroom floor, yet before the
paramedics had arrived. This narrows the
window of time for this call to the period of time when Esposito was “waiting
for the police to arrive” (the EMTs, actually), which was a mere 3 minutes
(from the time of the call to the fire station at 2:30pm to the time the
ambulance arrived at 2:33pm).5. Why has Joe Esposito never, to my knowledge, mentioned this
call, and why was this call placed at this time, in the middle of what we have
been told was a life-and-death crisis?6. If this call was placed while Esposito was literally
standing next to Elvis’s body, why has no one ever said anything about this
call, considering that the upstairs suite and bathroom began filling up with
people as word got around the Graceland property/mansion that Elvis had been discovered in some sort of distress? From what we’ve been told,
several people have stated that CPR was being administered to Elvis, and that
Joe Esposito was one of the people working on Elvis before the paramedics arrived. But in Weintraub’s account, Esposito was not
involved in the resuscitation efforts for at least several minutes after the 2:30pm emergency call, and had, by that time, determined that Elvis was dead. Again, why has
not one person who was in the bathroom at this critical time period mentioned
this alleged phone call? Or, if the phone
call did not take place, why would Jerry Weintraub, a man of considerable
credibility in the entertainment industry with no reason to lie, state
unequivocally that the call was
placed?As I stated previously, the content of the emergency call is a key issue
here, since Esposito would not have identified the person’s identity over the
phone, and even the people who are familiar with the content of the call have said
the emergency assistance was needed for an adult male in respiratory distress.
There was no mention of Elvis, and the people who knew the address assumed the
person in question was Vernon Presley. So, if there was no specific mention of
Elvis on the call, how did Roone Arledge know within THREE minutes of the call that
Elvis was dead? He would have had no
access to such information at that time, neither the name of the person nor the
condition of the person.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

For as long as alivers have been peddling their wares, one of their go-to pieces of "evidence" has been the story of a man resembling Elvis Presley, but going by the name of "Jon Burrows," purchasing a ticket to South America (Buenos Aires) at the Memphis International Airport (MIA) on the afternoon of August 16, 1977. There has never been any evidence offered as to who witnessed this ticket purchase, how this witness knew the purchaser's name was "Jon Burrows," nor how this witness knew the particulars of the ticket purchase. But who cares about the facts, right?

In Elvis Decoded, a trusted source provided me with information indicating that no international flight tickets were available for purchase at MIA in 1977, but I want to post the response I received recently from a representative of the airport to add further clarity and weight. In a response to my inquiry as to whether an international flight ticket could be purchased at MIA in 1977, the representative stated:

"There were no international flights from Memphis International in 1977."

"An international flight ticket could not be purchased at MIA in 1977. A domestic ticket would have to be purchased which would then connect you to the nearest airport that flies to your international destination."

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

From the August 15, 1972, property settlement agreement, signed by Elvis Aaron Presley, clear proof that Elvis acknowledged the double-A spelling, and signed his name accordingly. This double-A spelling and signature should resolve the "Aron or Aaron?" question.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

I’d like to add one final word on the Ginger Alden Revisited topics I’ve discussed at the links below. Over the years, Ms. Alden has been attacked and maligned by many Elvis fans often because of the stories told by those who wanted to cast her in a very negative light. But if you take away these biased claims, and read an unbiased account of what happened at Graceland that day, the facts look very different.

Consider the eyewitness account from paramedic Ulysses Jones, for example. In a conversation with a longtime friend and trusted source of mine, Jones stated the following regarding Ginger Alden’s appearance and demeanor when he entered Elvis’s upstairs suite on August 16, 1977 (this quote is from my source after speaking with Mr. Jones several years ago):

“He [Jones] said that he noticed Ginger several times while they were there, and that, no doubt in his mind, she was not dressed and ‘made up,’ she was very distraught, had obviously been crying a lot, and was still dressed in, he thought, either a very pale yellow or maybe light blue robe. I asked him about three or four different times whether he was sure that she was not already dressed and he stated emphatically that there was no doubt in his mind about that.”

Jones was an objective, unbiased party to these events, and he spoke about the situation with no personal involvement or investment outside of his duties as a paramedic that day, and he had no reason to lie or shade the truth about what he witnessed. Jones was there. Was Dick Grob? No. Was Dean Nichopoulos? No. Were “the maids”? No.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

On August 16, 1977, Ginger Alden (Elvis's fiancée) was with Elvis in his upstairs suite, and at 2:20 that afternoon she found his lifeless body on the floor of the bathroom. Since then, Ginger's actions that day have been described in various ways, most of which are very much at odds with the facts. With Ginger's long-awaited book in the works, I am going to revisit this topic in the hope that by the time the book is published, at least some fans will be able to approach it with a clearer understanding of what really happened that day, and a fairer and more reasonable view of Ginger's involvement in the day's events.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

The autopsy permission form was taken from Baptist Memorial Hospital to Graceland shortly after Elvis was pronounced dead on August 16, 1977. The form was to be presented to Vernon Presley for his signature, and information about the autopsy procedure would at that time be provided and explained to him. But right before this discussion took place, Vernon had to have been notified that Elvis was dead. Who told him? And who then talked to him about the autopsy? My analysis is linked here.

UPDATE (6/10/11): Further comments on the autopsy permission form from Dr. Nichopoulos, illustrating that it was apparently he who initiated and handled the situation, not Dick Grob:

Nichopoulos: “…it was left to me to break the news to Vernon that his boy was dead.”

When Nichopoulos told Vernon that Elvis had died: “Vernon heard me without understanding the meaning of my pronouncement.”

Dr. Nichopoulos notes that Vernon initially refused to grant permission for the autopsy, but that he was persuaded by Dr. Nichopoulos’s plea that he needed to “know if I did something wrong.”

Dr. Nichopoulos says he walked away from Vernon after Vernon refused to grant permission for the autopsy, but that Vernon then called after him, instructing Nichopoulos to make sure they “put my boy back together.” Nichopoulos does not mention the autopsy permission form.

Nichopoulos: “I took an authorization from the emergency room and went out to Elvis’s house to tell his daddy what had happened…”

Nichopoulos: “I don’t recall [seeing Dick Grob at the hospital]. I don’t remember whether he was in town or not.”

Nichopoulos states that he decided an autopsy should be performed, that he got the autopsy permission form from a nurse, and that he would tell Vernon and Minnie Mae [Elvis’s grandmother] about Elvis’s death.

Nichopoulos says that, “…I related the news to them [Vernon, Minnie Mae, and others in the room], and I talked about things for awhile. And then somewhere in the course of events, I asked him for permission for an autopsy, which he granted.”

At no time does Nichopoulos mention anything about Dick Grob dealing with the autopsy permission form, nor speaking with Vernon at Graceland. And while these statements from Nichopoulos are not totally consistent from account to account, they nonetheless are consistent on the overall narrative.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Over the years there has been continuing confusion in public resources (books, articles, message boards, etc.) as to the documents relating to Elvis’s death. These documents are the autopsy report, the Medical Examiner’s report, the death certificate, and the Permission for Autopsy form. Below is an overview of the facts pertaining to each, and how they are different:

The Autopsy Report: This report (Postmortem #A77-160) was put together by the Baptist Memorial Hospital pathologists who performed the autopsy. The autopsy report is not a public document; it was prepared for the Presley family and is the property of the Presley family. It is not “under seal,” nor is it, as a private medical record, subject to judicial seal. Because the autopsy report is a private medical record, it will not be released at any time.

The Medical Examiner’s Report: This is the 2-page report signed and submitted by the Shelby County Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Francisco. This document is officially titled, “Report of Investigation by County Medical Examiner,” and is designated Case #77-1944. This 2-page report is not the autopsy report.

The Death Certificate: This is the death certificate completed and signed by Dr. Francisco and filed with the state of Tennessee. Per Tennessee statute, death certificates become public documents at the end of a 50-year period, which means this document will be released in 2027. The death certificate, while not available to the public, is not “under seal,” but is simply not a public document based on Tennessee law.

The Permission for Autopsy Form: This is the form (BMH #29-51) signed by Vernon Presley to grant permission for the autopsy. The signing of the form was witnessed by Dr. George C. Nichopoulos and Richard H. Grob.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

I had a very interesting conversation this afternoon with the person who took the Elvis autopsy photos on the evening of August 16, 1977. We discussed where at Baptist Memorial Hospital the photos were taken, what the photos show, the film developing process, and several other topics related to this photographer's job that day.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

The character of “Jesse,” as we see “him” in the public domain, is a composite personification of all the beliefs held by the alivers. He talks about his devotion to numerology, how August 16, 1977, was a “hoax” (but not really) planned by Colonel Parker, and how he was a super crime-fighter, even assisting the Feds in the last year or so of his life. Alivers contend that Elvis was caught up in the FBI investigation into the sale of his JetStar airplane, which was part of a larger investigation known as Operation Fountain Pen. In Dr. Hinton’s book, “Jesse” plays the role of the aliver version of Elvis perfectly, even commenting on his decision not to enter the Witness Protection Program (due to the mythical danger he was in, of course, and the alleged threats against his life and possibly the lives of family members). On page 47 of Hinton’s book, from one of the many letters to Hinton from “Jesse,” we find the following comment:

“…I chose not to be in the Witness Protection program…”

Here, “Jesse” is playing the aliver version of Elvis, the Elvis that had to escape the dangers that faced him in August 1977. But what this comment really tells us is that whomever is playing the role of “Jesse” in this ridiculous con-game is *NOT* Elvis Presley, because as I outlined in my September 30 post, Elvis never knew about Operation Fountain Pen, nor the specific investigation into the JetStar deal. Thus, he was never a witness. He was never threatened. He was never in any danger. His family was never in any danger. And because of this, the Witness Protection program was never even part of the story. Why would they offer “witness protection” to someone who was never a witness, and knew nothing of the investigation?

If "Jesse" were Elvis, he would know all of this.

To all thinking people, this is a clear and very revealing error made by the con artists playing this ridiculous “Jesse” game.

Monday, November 15, 2010

This is a transcription of the letter Dee Presley wrote on October 28, 2010, to Sam Coplin regarding the eBook released under her name in July, 2010. The third page (the second post script) was likely added later, and intended for someone else. In [brackets] are words that I am not sure of, or the proper spelling of a name or word.

I am still [in_sting / in _sting] the release of the material that was released in July 2010 which I called you about. I was not aware it even existed until 10/27/10. I called Barnes and Noble and came up with this information. You and Phillip [Scheldt] name [are] [showing] up and me as the authorized authors, I have never or I will never publish or allow any more "sensation" [sensational?] material to be released using my name in any way. I am trying to find out who made a contract to market this. I have not signed any contract with you or any one [releasing] an electronic book.

Page 2

I am seeking legal advice at this time hoping to see what options I have. I trust you might be also interested since at this time you and Phillip [Scheldt] seem to be [involved], you told me yesterday you had nothing to do with any contracts or any marketing of the material - I hope not -

I want this stopped immediately.

Thanks

Dee Presley

P.S. I just was informed by someone working on [cleaning/clearing] this up that Phillip Scheldt – stated on the [website] he was representing me – I never heard of him until this came up or have I ever been in any working relationship with him.

Page 3

P.S. I am still waiting to hear from Sam Coplin, he has not replied or sent any information – who sold the material, or to whom, or any contracts signed by me, I will keep you informed and post any messages from him or his partner – Phillip?? Also I don’t have any working contract with him on any book material.

I am sorry, needless to say as you already know when I put him on notice my plan to seek legal advice and find out who is responsible for the embarrassment and agony this has caused me and my family. It was immediately stopped but I feel the damage [was] already done.

Friday, October 22, 2010

UPDATE (11-11-10): I have finally finished reading and digesting this book, as it was tough to get through considering the multiple flaws. I am now very curious about who published this eBook, and how the book was released, given the statement from Dee Stanley that she had nothing to do with it. I am also interested to see how this mess is reconciled with the Stanley brothers' statements: David denies any connection to the book (but does not deny knowledge of it prior to publication); Rick denies any knowledge of the book; and Billy says he knew about the book and tried to stop its publication. If Billy is telling the truth, are we also to believe that over the past 3 months or so since the book's release, that no one bothered to mention it to David and Rick? Very strange.

10/22/10: Against Marty Lacker's sage advice, and against my better judgment, I am now reading the "book" that Dee Stanley put out a few months ago. Really.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

UPDATE (11-11-10): At some point I hope to post a full analysis and commentary on the OPFOPEN case based on my discussions with the retired FBI agent who initiated and worked undercover on the case. For now, however, there are several key pieces of information to consider, all of which come straight from this FBI agent:

1. Elvis Presley was not involved in any way with OPFOPEN. In fact, Elvis never knew about OPFOPEN.

2. Vernon Presley did not know about OPFOPEN until after Elvis's death on August 16, 1977, which means that while Elvis was alive, neither Vernon nor Elvis knew of this active FBI investigation.

3. Elvis Presley's life was never in danger due to the OPFOPEN case, nor was he threatened by anyone involved in this case.

These three points are critical in evaluating the many claims pertaining to Elvis's alleged (mythical) role in federal law enforcement, especially in the last year or so of his life.

9/30/10: Elvis fans for years have suggested Elvis was actively involved in the FBI's OPFOPEN case—an acronym for the FBI’s international undercover case called, “Operation Fountain Pen”—and in 1977 he was in fear for his life. The claims, stories, and myths are numerous and the tales of intrigue never-ending.

But is the story true? Did Elvis help Bureau undercover agents pursue certain Organized Crime and White-Collar-Crime figures determined to use “offshore banks” and “bogus” securities to bring about economic havoc here, in the United States, and abroad? Was Elvis working behind the scenes on the JetStar deal gone awry? Speaking with the retired FBI agent who initiated and worked undercover on the OPFOPEN case, the short answer is "No." But, he said, there are details Elvis fans might be interested in learning.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Updates coming soon on the poolhouse photo (the iron bars visible in the top part of the door, and the timeframe of Al Strada's post-August 1977 employment with the estate), the question of the cranial autopsy, and perhaps a few dollar figures on the costs associated with Elvis's funeral. These updates are based on follow-up research relevant to topics that are discussed in Elvis Decoded.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Billy Stanley (one of Elvis's stepbrothers) has recently stated in an interview with Discovering Elvis that he feels he was set up when he was approached about the identity of the man in the infamous Muhammad Ali/Jesse Jackson photo. Stanley was asked by an aliver to identify the man, and not knowing that the photo was taken in 1984, Stanley replied that the man was Elvis Presley.

Was Billy Stanley really set up, as he claims, or is there another explanation? My commentary on this question is posted here.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

One of the standard "go-to" pieces of evidence the alivers use to prove/support the death hoax is the Lloyds of London insurance policy, which they claim was purchased but never cashed/paid out. Thus, they reason, the insurance policy supports the hoaxed death theory since Elvis and the estate would be guilty of insurance fraud if the policy had been paid out.

First, this policy was never purchased.

Second, this theory ignores the fact that Elvis Presley and his family had multiple insurance policies that would have been affected upon Elvis’s death. Or, are we to believe that one the biggest earners in the entertainment industry had just one insurance policy? Really? Just one?

Finally, this piece of evidence, like so many other pieces of evidence offered up by the alivers, is researched only so far as it supports their death hoax theory. Once they decide a fact supports their theory, they stop researching. In this case, someone (who?) reports that a life insurance policy is still active, and well, that’s good enough for them. No research into whether the policy was purchased. No research into who reported that a life insurance policy was purchased. No research into how this information was obtained (since insurers closely protect customers’ medical and insurance information). No research into other insurance policies, and whether they were cashed or are still active.

Nothing.

To make a long story short, the estate deposited a lump sum death benefit check from the United States Treasury on February 21, 1978. This eliminates the "Lloyds of London" theory the alivers use to support a death hoax, since this check represents a financial benefit for the estate as a direct result of the death.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Several months ago I sat down to go over the Petition for Paternity that was filed by "Eliza Presley" with the Chancery Court, and part of that examination led me to review a few other documents and photos that have surfaced over the past year or two. One of these is an image that shows a title page from one of Dr. Hinton's books with two signatures just below the title. One of the signatures reads "Elvis Presley," while the other reads, "Jesse Presley." After the "Jesse Presley" signature, we see the added notation, "age 74." This title page is from the book that "Eliza Presley" was trying to sell on her website in 2009, an offer that has since been withdrawn.

Several questions come to mind when contemplating this title page with these two signatures, and the "age 74" notation:

Since when does a celebrity, in the course of signing an autograph, also write his or her age? Has anyone seen an autograph from George Clooney that reads, "George Clooney age 48"? What about an autograph from Julia Roberts, signed, "Julia Roberts age 42"? Does the person who signed the name "Jesse Presley" and wrote "age 74" think that those people who have not already been indoctrinated into the strange labyrinth constructed by "the true believers" might somehow be convinced of the signature’s authenticity based on this "age 74" notation? That is, if the "age 74" note were not there, would there be some suspicion or question as to the identity of the signer? But that by adding "age 74," that suspicion would be alleviated, and the uninitiated would then conclude, "Oh, it says 'age 74' right here next to 'Jesse Presley,' so that means it had to have been signed by Elvis Presley, since Elvis would have been 74 years old when this signature was made." Is this "age 74" notation actually intended to convince people of the authenticity of these signatures?

Really now, how stupid, how gullible, how naïve, and how ignorant does the character of "Jesse" think people are? Does he/she really believe that "age 74" would be enough to change someone’s mind about this whole "Jesse" scheme?

Finally, "Jesse," whom we are told is really Elvis Presley, writes in the Hinton book that Elvis died in 1977, and that at the time of Elvis’s death, "Jesse" came to life. If that is the case, then why did “Jesse” write that he is 74? Shouldn’t the note have read, "age 32"?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

In addition to the two documents cited previously, we also have an October 22, 1970, gun application that features the double-A spelling and the signature of Elvis A. Presley. This proves conclusively that Elvis was using the name "Aaron" long before Vernon used the double-A spelling on the grave marker.

UPDATE (9/27/10): Another example of the double-A spelling being used prior to August 1977 is posted below. This is from a Quitclaim Deed signed by Priscilla Presley on August 15, 1972.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

I had the honor and privilege recently of discussing the resuscitation efforts on August 16, 1977, with the physician who led those efforts. I hope to be able to share his account in the future. The doctor was very generous with his description of the events, and the details he provided helped to clear up at least one long-standing question. Such a first-person account goes a long way in helping to understand what happened at Baptist Memorial Hospital that day.

Conventional wisdom in the world of Elvis-is-Alive theorizing tells us that Elvis spelled his middle name "Aron" throughout his life, and that Vernon Presley just pulled the double-A spelling ("Aaron") out of thin air when Elvis died and he used that spelling on the grave marker. So, all these years, the suspicion by those who are suspicious of such things is that the double-A spelling is a sign that Elvis is not buried there, or that Elvis didn't die...since Elvis supposedly never used the double-A spelling.

Right?

Recently, I came across two legal documents, one from July 19, 1973, and the other from August 12, 1977...and both feature the double-A spelling of Elvis's middle name. Elvis did not sign either document, and Vernon signed only the 1977 document. However, Vernon signed a document that included the double-A spelling, and this is important. As Elvis's attorney-in-fact, Vernon signed for Elvis on many legal documents, and in signing this document Vernon validated the spelling of the name as "Aaron." That is, by signing the document with the double-A spelling, he had to have known that the spelling was valid, and the only way he could have known the spelling was valid is if Elvis had told him that "Aaron" could be used in place of "Aron." This lends support to Marty Lacker's claim that Elvis instructed his father to use the "Aaron" spelling starting sometime around 1966. Obviously, by signing his name to this document, Vernon was not concerned by the double-A spelling.

NOTE: Elvis granted his father Power of Attorney ("attorney-in-fact") on February 6, 1968, and then confirmed the continuation of this designation on February 23, 1977.

And, assuming these documents, and other legal documents from that time period, were later reviewed by Elvis's attorneys, we can safely assume that no one else objected to the use of the name "Aaron," either.

So, Vernon did NOT misspell the name as the "alivers" have alleged for so many years, and because the double-A spelling was used in an official capacity (i.e., legal documents) prior to August 16, 1977, the name was not just pulled out of a hat when Vernon was ordering the grave marker. We have the double-A spelling used on a document signed by Vernon just 4 days prior to Elvis's death, so Vernon had recognized the name "Aaron" before Elvis died.

And, lest we forget, the name "Aaron" also appears on a legal document as early as July 19, 1973, and certainly this document was read and reviewed for accuracy by Elvis's attorneys.

Vernon Presley's use of "Aaron" on the grave marker, then, is perfectly justified and is supported by at least two previous examples of the use of the double-A spelling.

Monday, January 25, 2010

UPDATE (7/13/10): The CSI article is now posted here, and is online at the CSI website here.

An article I wrote called "There's No Debate: Elvis Is Not Alive" has been published in The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry's December 2009 newsletter. The article in "Skeptical Briefs" will be posted here soon.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Recently I was contacted via AllExperts.com by two people who are adamant in their belief that Elvis is alive and that he faked his death in 1977. The first submission is from a person who claims to be friends with Elvis Presley today, in 2010, and the other is from a person supporting the idea that Elvis is alive. (Another short submission from someone else asking about the claims is also included.) I am posting these pieces because collectively they introduce several important topics/angles to the "Elvis is alive" school of thought, and they allow me to address what I believe to be serious issues that are not often discussed in the "aliver" world. The links to these AllExperts.com submissions are here: Part I, Part II, Part III.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Part II of my analysis of the Presley Commission's Presley Report picks up where Part I left off, looking at the Commission's claims pertaining to the autopsy, the Medical Examiner's report, etc. This section is linked here.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Part I of my analysis of the Presley Commission's investigation into the death of Elvis Presley is linked here. This section addresses the organizational aspect of the Presley Commission, as well as the Commission's stated purpose.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

As I mentioned about a month ago, I will be posting further analyses and commentary on the Presley Commission's investigation and claims. Part I of this continuing examination will focus on the introductory section of the Presley Report, and Part II will address the medical and drug issues and theories as presented by the Presley Commission. Part III covers the Commission's contention that a "replacement body" was used as part of the death hoax, and Part IV will close the analysis. Part I of this series will be posted this weekend.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

I did an interview on the Judy Joy Jones Show this evening. The discussion focused on the death hoax theory, but from the perspective of whether a death hoax was possible (in terms of involvement, logistics, etc.). The interview is linked here.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

The Presley Commission took great offense at the Shelby County Medical Examiner’s reference to a “sutured thoracotomy” on page one of the 2-page Report of Investigation by County Medical Examiner. Their position was two-fold: 1) Since the thoracotomy was “sutured,” it could not have been a procedure performed on Elvis Presley’s body in the Emergency Room (they believe an opening in the chest wall on a cadaver would not be sewn up after the person had been declared dead), and, 2) The reason for this incision could not have been to access the interior chest (heart, lungs, etc.) because the incision was located at the ribs and thus would not allow for that type of access.

I believe this position clearly illustrates that the Presley Report was not the objective, truth-seeking operation is claimed to be, and that its sole purpose was/is to spread any and all information, rumors, conjecture, and/or theories that support only a faked death. It also proves that the Presley Commission did not objectively research the thoracotomy issue. What other conclusion can be reached? Five minutes of objective research on the thoracotomy procedure would have resolved the Commission’s questions pertaining to the procedure as outlined in the Medical Examiner’s report; instead, the Presley Commission, in typical conspiratorial mind-set, concluded that the procedure had sinister implications, and decided then and there that the body in the ER was not that of Elvis Presley.

Five minutes of research…that’s all it took. But the Presley Commission didn’t even do that. We must assume, then, that nothing in the Presley Report has been adequately researched or analyzed, if the thoracotomy analysis in any way exemplifies their approach to these topics and questions.

Let’s take a look at the Commission’s claims regarding the “sutured thoracotomy” that is mentioned in the 2-page Medical Examiner’s report:

“The next mark indicated on the drawing, is a ‘sutured thoracotomy.’ This is a small incision made in the space normally between the second and third rib. This technique is primarily used to drain fluids from the [thoracic] (chest) cavity, caused from excess fluid around the lungs, as in a case of pneumonia, for example. This is not a procedure used to insert a gloved hand, to perform cardiac massage. The spacing between the ribs measures in the centimeter range, and is [too] small to fit a hand into as indicated in some statements.”

Now, let’s compare the Presley Commission’s claims to the following information on a procedure called anterolateral thoracotomy:

“Anterolateral thoracotomy [the incision made to the front, and side] is performed upon the anterior [front] chest wall; left anterolateral thoracotomy is the incision of choice for open chest massage, a critical maneuver in the management of traumatic cardiac arrest. Anterolateral thoracotomy, like most surgical incisions, requires the use of tissue retractors - in this case, a ‘rib spreader' such as the Tuffier retractor." [This retractor is pictured above.]

So, simply stated, an anterolateral thoracotomy is an incision on the front left of the chest...exactly what was done in the E.R. during the resuscitation efforts. Based on this definition, we find two key pieces of information that counter and prove false the Presley Commission's claims: 1) the procedure is used for open chest massage (of the heart), and 2) the procedure may require a rib spreader, which allows access to the heart (meaning the small space between the ribs mentioned by the Commission is not relevant).

Why didn’t the Presley Commission locate this same information, since they claim to have researched and investigated these issues? The Presley Commission specifically states:

“This is not a procedure used to insert a gloved hand, to perform cardiac massage.”

And:

“The spacing between the ribs measures in the centimeter range, and is [too] small to fit a hand into…”

In fact, contrary to what the Presley Commissions states here, it is the exact procedure used to “insert a gloved hand…to perform cardiac massage.”

Further, consider the following, from SurgeryEncyclopedia.com:

“A resuscitative or emergency thoracotomy may be performed to resuscitate a patient who is near death as a result of a chest injury. An emergency thoracotomy provides access to the chest cavity to control injury-related bleeding from the heart, cardiac compressions to restore a normal heart rhythm, or to relieve pressure on the heart caused by cardiac tamponade (accumulation of fluid in the space between the heart's muscle and outer lining).

“In the case of an emergency thoracotomy, the procedure performed depends on the type and extent of injury. The heart may be exposed so that direct cardiac compressions can be performed; the physician may use one hand or both hands to manually pump blood through the heart.”

Based on the information above, it’s pretty clear that a thoracotomy is used to access the heart in a cardiac emergency. Does the Presley Commission tell us this? No. They tell us the exact opposite, even though the information above was and is readily available to any researcher.

The Presley Commission then writes:

“Once again, this invalidates the accuracy of this document. Another very significant term used, is ‘sutured.’ A cadaver is not sutured after a thoracotomy has been done. The tubing used is normally left in the body, and in some obscure cases, may be removed. In either case, there would not be a suture.”

Now, the Presley Commission in this passage is trying to convince the reader that they did the research on this subject, and thus have some authority to comment on how a thoracotomy is performed, and what steps are taken at the conclusion of the procedure. However, if they researched how a thoracotomy is performed, in terms of the removal of tubing and such (they reference only the draining of fluid as the reason for this procedure), then how did they miss the fact that this procedure is used for open cardiac massage (which they implicitly deny it is used for)? Interesting that they supposedly researched and analyzed this information, but only those facts that they believe support their conclusions actually made it into the Presley Report. The fact that a thoracotomy is used to access the heart apparently was not part of the research materials they consulted.

Since they are mistaken on what the procedure can be used for, their contention that the thoracotomy "invalidates the accuracy" of the Medical Examiner's report is without merit.

Also, on the question of whether a cadaver is sutured, we might consider the following, from the same source cited above:

“Once the procedure that required the incision is completed, the chest wall is closed. The layers of skin, muscle, and other tissues are closed with stitches or staples. If the breastbone was cut (as in the case of a median sternotomy), it is stitched back together with wire.”

This most likely refers to the closing of the wound after the patient has been successfully resuscitated. However, it is certainly possible that out of deference to a patient, who instead of being successfully resuscitated, has just died, the doctor would close the open wound. There is also the possibility that a wound like this would be sutured due to the chance of leakage during transport (when the body is removed from the ER).

To suggest that a thoracotomy incision is not (or is rarely) closed/sutured on a dead body, as the Commission contends, and then to conclude that such a closure has sinister implications, is absurd. Is a thoracotomy incision on a cadaver typically sutured? No, it's not. But, is a thoracotomy incision ever sutured? Of course it is. So, why is this such a puzzling question for the Presley Commission, that the thoracotomy incision in this case was sutured?

We continue with the Presley Commission’s analysis of the thoracotomy:

“This [the suturing, mentioned above] would indicate that this procedure had been done days prior to death, to still have the stitches in place, and noted. The various statements indicated that Elvis was very active, playing with Lisa, playing racquetball, and also singing; having sutures in that area of the chest would cause great risk of pulling and/or tearing the stitches out during any of the activities noted. If for argument sake, this was a sutured thoracotomy that had healed, it should have shown a ‘thoracotomy scar.’”

The chest wall had been accessed during resuscitation efforts, so the sutured incision noted at the autopsy was not referring to an opening in the chest made prior to August 16, 1977.

And, obviously, if Elvis had a sutured incision on the morning of the 16th, while he was still alive, he would have been taking things easy, in bed resting, or in the hospital. No one close to Elvis, including his own physician, has ever mentioned such a wound, nor that Elvis had undergone any recent surgical procedure in the days, weeks, or months prior to August 16, 1977.

To close, the facts from August 16, 1977, pertaining to the question of the sutured thoracotomy, are as follows:

3:30pm (+): The opening in the chest was sutured after resuscitation efforts were ceased.

7:00pm (+): The sutured opening was noted during the autopsy and included in the Medical Examiner’s report.

Conclusion: There is nothing suspicious about the sutured thoracotomy as noted in the Medical Examiner's report, and the Presley Commission once again exhibits its suspicious inability to understand the facts.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Over the past year or so I have been researching various medical and legal issues as they pertain to Elvis Presley, and to the death of Elvis Presley. As part of this research, I have decided to re-visit the work of the Presley Commission, since so much of what I have been examining lately reminds me of the many flaws found in the Presley Report. As a reminder, the Presley Commission was formed in early 1992 “to determine if the theories about Elvis Presley’s reported death would maintain substance after intensive analysis and examination.” Their research and investigation were presented in late 1994 as “The Presley Report.”

I should note that I continue to work on the "Elvis is alive" phenomenon, even though I have made it clear that I do not believe there was a hoaxed death, for the simple reason that I am continually asked about it, and the topics won't seem to go away.

So, I would like to offer some analyses of the claims outlined in the Presley Report, and shine some light on just how much research these folks actually did. I’ll start with the opening section of the Presley Report, and then continue with the medical issues covered in the report.

We should note at the outset that at least two of the Commission’s members have a financial interest in this story, and specifically in the notion that the death hoax theories support and circumstantially prove the death hoax. Gail Brewer-Giorgio has written several books promoting the idea that Elvis faked his death, and Monte Nicholson likewise has written a book based on the same idea. The Presley Commission, then, included at least two people who were already decided on the case.

Most of the other members of the Presley Commission refuse to reveal their identities.

As I mentioned, Part I of this examination focuses on the introductory section of the Presley Report, and Part II addresses the medical and drug issues and theories as presented by the Presley Commission. Part III covers the “replacement body” theory, and Part IV closes the analysis. I will present this analysis using page numbers as reference, though the Presley Report itself does not include page numbers.

A separate section, where we will begin our look at The Presley Report, will cover the Commission's "sutured thoracotomy" claims.

UP NEXT: Disinformation: The Presley Report - The Sutured Thoracotomy.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Author Patrick Lacy has written a book that is long overdue: a detailed, in-depth examination of the facts and figures that permeate the many Elvis books, websites, articles, and public boards. He sorts through all the information and puts things in proper perspective.

Elvis Decoded also covers scores of other questions and topics that have been largely ignored or mishandled over the past 31 years. The author offers a unique perspective on the toughest questions and the most complicated issues in the Elvis Universe, and explains how things got so confusing.

Elvis Decoded - A Fan's Guide to Deciphering the Myths and Misinformation is presented in a Q&A format, and offers an examination and comparison of the numerous Elvis source materials.Some of the topics covered in Elvis Decoded are:

-The cause of death-The events at Graceland on August 16, 1977-The “alive” conspiracy rumors, claims, and theories-The Elvis-related scams and schemes-The cemetery break-in-Elvis’s drug use and health issues-Elvis’s last will and testament

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Elvis Book Research announces latest nominees for inclusion in "Top 50 Elvis Books of All-Time": Dr John Walker from Elvis Book Research (EBR) advises EIN that the six latest books being considered for inclusion in the EBR Top 50 Elvis Books of All-Time list are:

Monday, May 26, 2008

The latest inanity from Paul Terry King, a man who has no grasp of fact vs. fiction:

“Patrick I got a fact you may not understand { Copyright registration is not a nessasary condition of copyright} The songs I wrote with Elvis became reality upon fixation and creation in 1973. They have been registered uncontested for the last 16 years in the copyright office but only recently have been noticed in the Elvis World by their auction and sale to Elvis PresleyEnterprises. Better stop smoking crack with them book royaty checks and get your facts straight and tell us how many units have been sold cause I want a dollar a copy from your publisher for your constant character assasination of me here in this forum!”

1. Mr. King, the fact is, you have tried to convince people of the legitimacy of your claim by citing the copyright registration, which you contend proves that Elvis Presley co-wrote these songs with you. This is the evidence you refer to in support of your claim. The evidence you cite, however, is meaningless, so you have now tried to back-track and change your position.

2. You use the word “uncontested” here, which tells me you are still sticking to the fantasy that just because no one has questioned the registration, that means the registration is legitimate. However, here is yet another fact you refuse to accept: The information on the registration is false, and the Copyright Office does not investigate information submitted on copyright registrations. You can spin and twist this all you want, but the fact remains that your claim that Elvis Presley co-wrote these songs based on his name being listed on a copyright registration is pure nonsense…and an attempt to fool people, to boot.

3. The sale of the song to Elvis Presley Enterprises came about as part of a sale of other items, and the song was part of that deal. That EPE purchased the song means nothing as to your claim of authorship. This is a fact.

4. Fact: I have never said anything about your claims that is not true.

5. Fact: I have never posted on the Elvis Express Radio forum. Apparently you don’t even understand that my blog is not the EER forum.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

The latest from Paul Terry King, the songwriter who claims to have written two songs with Elvis Presley, referring to me and my recent (April 29) analysis of his claims:

“For those of you thats been keeping up with this here He rants on splitting hairs about the difference in a registration and a infringment which all boiled down is the same thing as It is an infringment to use elvis presleys name or likeness wrongfully! I am proud of the songs I wrote at american Recording Studios and elsewhere! Now that is a fact!”

Mr. King, here are a few facts for you:

Fact 1: Copyright registration and copyright infringement are two totally different issues, and to differentiate between them is most certainly not “splitting hairs.” On the registration issue, I have addressed whether your claim to have written two songs with Elvis Presley stands up under scrutiny based on the information you provided on the copyright registration. It does not. The false information you included in the registration is just that, false information, but the Copyright Office does not investigate this type of information. This is fully explained in my previous blog posts, but why you are unable to understand the matter is a mystery to me. Well, no, it’s not.

Fact 2: Copyright infringement is a serious matter and carries serious consequences. You are now suggesting that registration and infringement are pretty much the same issue, and that they “boil down” to the same thing. You are flat-out wrong. Do your homework.

Fact 3: Infringement is not an issue here because you are not using Elvis Presley’s name and likeness in a manner that would violate copyright or trademark laws. You seem to believe that your use of Elvis Presley’s name as part of the copyright registration would be copyright infringement if Elvis did not, in fact, write these songs with you, but as with every other facet of this ridiculous story of yours, you are flat-out wrong. Again, do your homework.

Fact 4: I changed the title of the last post to “Paul Terry King Doesn't Understand The Facts” just for you. Enjoy.

Recently I have been researching various medical and legal issues as they pertain to Elvis Presley, and to the death of Elvis Presley, and I have decided to re-visit the Presley Commission report, since so much of what I have been reading lately reminds me of how flawed the Presley Report really is. As some of you may know, the Presley Commission was formed in early 1992 “to determine if the theories about Elvis Presley’s reported death would maintain substance after intensive analysis and examination.” As I write in Elvis Decoded, it is unclear who appointed such a group, and why they were appointed. Their research and investigative efforts were presented in late 1994 as “The Presley Report.”

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Songwriter Paul Terry King has again challenged my position regarding his copyright for the songs he claims to have written with Elvis Presley in 1973. This time, however, King has changed his set of facts. Last year, King posted the following on a public message board:

“First and foremost he starts off that a bmi registration and a United States copyright registration mean nothing as to proof of authorship! How wrong you are Mr. Lacy! In fact its known as prima facia evidence in legal terms and that is why the penaltys for false statements on a copyright are so severe 10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!”

Notice that he refers to copyright registration, and proof of authorship. In response to King, I posted an analysis of his claims on the Elvis Decoded blog, and included an explanation of why King is incorrect. The full response can be found here at http://elvisdecoded.blogspot.com/ (the March 16, 2008 post), but the main points are:

1. From the Copyright Office in Washington DC:

“The Copyright Office is an office of public record. We make a public record of a claim to copyright. We do not investigate whether or not the information on an application is valid. In the specific example you gave, the claimant stated in the application that the work was created in 1973, which is before his co-author's death. He does not give his co-author's name as the claimant, only as the author.”

2. “Futher, as I write on the Elvis Decoded webpage: ‘PTK [Paul Terry King] copyrighted this song in 1993, 20 years after the song was supposedly written. This is a clear indication that the CO does not, and cannot, investigate claims of authorship. Otherwise, they would have refused the registration because they were not able to confirm with Elvis Presley that he co-wrote the song, since Elvis Presley had been deceased for 16 years.’I stand by my research and analysis. Mr. King is wrong. His registration with the Copyright Office does NOT support his contention that Elvis Presley is the confirmed co-writer of the song. The Copyright Office does NOT confirm and does NOT investigate authorship.

Finally, I would like to address King’s claim that making a false statement on a copyright registration is subject to a penalty of up to a $350,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment.The Copyright Office seems to have a different set of facts. Here is what the CO says (from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506):

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.’

Paul Terry King, in the interest of full disclosure, should reveal where and how he determined that a false claim on a copyright registration is subject to such severe penalties, when the actual punishment is quite unremarkable. And nowhere do I see any mention of prison.” [end]

So, it seems pretty clear that we are addressing the question of copyright registration.

(29.04.08) Paul Terry King USA "As for an EER interview one on one with Patrick Lacy on the Joe Krein Special next week all I would say to that head in the sand scholar Lacy is for him to pop in any DVD and the first words seen are" Warning Infingements are investigated by the FBI and punishable by 5 yr imprisonment and a 250,000 fine not a paltry 2500 dollar fine for claiming Elvis as a co-author as he describes in his latest blog 'The Copyright Office vs Paul Terry King' on the net."

Here, King suggests I should view the opening sequences of any DVD and find the correct information on copyright infringement, and the penalties for said infringement. However, nowhere in my analyses of King’s claims have I ever mentioned copyright infringement, and nowhere in his various online posts about me and my work has he mentioned copyright infringement. The issue is copyright registration, which is addressed by me in my blog and on my webpage, and is also addressed by Mr. King himself in his previous posting about my position on his story (cited above).

Let’s read again what King posted last year:

“First and foremost he starts off that a bmi registration and a United States copyright registration mean nothing as to proof of authorship! How wrong you are Mr. Lacy! In fact its known as prima facia evidence in legal terms and that is why the penaltys for false statements on a copyright are so severe 10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!”

He is referring to copyright registration.

Now, let’s read again what he wrote today:

“As for an EER interview one on one with Patrick Lacy on the Joe Krein Special next week all I would say to that head in the sand scholar Lacy is for him to pop in any DVD and the first words seen are" Warning Infingements are investigated by the FBI and punishable by 5 yr imprisonment and a 250,000 fine not a paltry 2500 dollar fine for claiming Elvis as a co-author as he describes in his latest blog ‘The Copyright Office vs Paul Terry King’ on the net.”

He is now referring to copyright infringement. Submitting false information to the copyright office, which I believe King has done, is NOT copyright infringement.

Mr. King, where have I ever accused you of copyright infringement, or even mentioned copyright infringement? In your post last year you stated that, “penalties [sic] for false statements on a copyright are so severe…10yr imprisonment and up to a $350,000 fine!!!” You referred to, “penaltys [sic] for false statements on a copyright.” These are your words. You did NOT refer to copyright infringement.

Today, suddenly, you’ve changed your facts, and have again attacked my work based on your inability to understand this information, and your inability to understand the law.

Elvis Decoded

About the Author

In addition to his never-ending Elvis research, Patrick Lacy has consulted for VH-1 and The Family Channel on two Elvis-related programs ("Rock and Roll Record Breakers" and "The Presleys"), assisted on various Elvis-related projects over the years, appeared on TV and radio and in print interviews, written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and (no longer) volunteers as an Elvis expert at AllExperts.com. Currently he is working on further Elvis research.